Laserfiche WebLink
35. Frontier's removal from the list of approved sureties maintained by the U.S. <br />Department of Treasury does not affect its status or capacity in Colorado. <br />36. As a result of C.R.S. §34-33-108, the Board may not interpret any Colorado <br />Surface Coal Mining Reclamation Act ("Coal Act") rule in a manner that is more stringent than <br />under federal law, absent a specific finding by the Board pertaining to public health or the <br />environment. No such finding has been made by the Board. <br />37. As a result of C.R.S. §34-33-108, the Board may not interpret any Coal Act rule <br />in a manner that is more stringent than under federal law, except to the extent that "[n]othing in <br />this subsection shall supercede rules in effect prior to May 29, 1992. Although this rule was in <br />effect prior to May 29, 1992, reference to the limitation imposed by Rule 3.02.](2) and the <br />uniformit}~ of language between the federal and state regulations requires a state interpretation <br />consistent with that contained in the federal preamble and rule. <br />38. Under the applicable federal rules, the appropriate remedy in instances of surety <br />incapacity is an order requiring the company to "cease coal extraction ... and immediately begin <br />to reclaim the permit area in accordance with the reclamation plan." 48 Fed. Reg. 32932, (July <br />19, 1983); 30 C.F.R. §800.16(e)(2). The federal preamble determined it would be unfair to be <br />penalized for circumstances beyond their control, such as status of the surety. <br />39. Powderhorn had ceased coal production and had begun reclamation in accordance <br />with its reclamation plan, which is the most stringent remedy that can be imposed by the Board, <br />even prior to issuance of the NOVs by the Division. <br />40. The State must look to the federal interpretation of this virtually identical, <br />contemporaneous rule in intuiting the meaning of the parallel State provision. <br />41. No provision of the Coal Act authorizes the Board to interpret Rule 3.02.4(2)(6) <br />in a manner that will penalize Powderhorn for the status of Frontier with Colorado having <br />accepted the validly issued Frontier Bond. C.R.S. § 34-33-101 et sec <br />42. By determining that Powderhorn was in violation of 2 C.Q.R. 407.2, Rule <br />3.02(2)(6) of the regulations because it failed to replace the Frontier Bond, the Board has <br />inappropriately interpreted a Coal Act rule more stringently than Federal law in violation of <br />C.R.S. § 34-33-108. <br />43. Powderhorn has ceased disturbance of surface acreage and all activity related to <br />coal extraction consistent with 30 C.F.R. § 800.16(e)(2). <br />44 Powderhorn is actively reclaiming the Powderhorn Mines in accordance with its <br />reclamation plan consistent with 30 C.F.R. § 800.16(e)(2). <br />5 <br />